Cross-IMP pairs ruling 2
EBU

In a multi-session club cross-IMP pairs competition with nine-board rounds, converted to VPs:

South alerted the 2NT call and explained it when East asked as both minors. North called me at the end of the auction and corrected the explanation to "natural, as if I'd overcalled 1♥ with 1NT".

I gave South West the option of taking back her final pass and restarting the auction (she declined), told NS that if they would have acted differently at any other point they were to say nothing but call me back at the end of play.

Result: 3NT(N)=, lead ♠7.

East-West told me at the end of the round there was no problem with the board and they didn't need a ruling.

N massively deserves a PP, he has used the UI not to give whatever the correct response is to the 3♣ enquiry over his balanced 2N because (particularly if it's 3♦) partner might do something stupid over it. If they just play stayman, S might well bid 3N anyway over 3 hearts if it shows values and a heart card. I would explain that I needed to rule on it and why, and take it away to look at after I established NS's system over the 3♣ bid.

N massively deserves a PP, he has used the UI not to give whatever the correct response is to the 3♣ enquiry over his balanced 2N because (particularly if it's 3♦) partner might do something stupid over it. If they just play stayman, S might well bid 3N anyway over 3 hearts if it shows values and a heart card. I would explain that I needed to rule on it and why, and take it away to look at after I established NS's system over the 3♣ bid.

North could also be worried that 3♥ would be taken as shortness in hearts and extra values.

That's if he even considered treating 3♣ as Stayman, rather than just using the UI to know that it was not meant as such.

This seems to be a case of either reverting the contract to 3♣ (if the bid were ostensibly natural), or North bidding 3♥ if 3♣ was Stayman - and then work out what South would do. We need to know agreements before we decide whether we keelhaul NS or hang them.

The hardest director decisions inevitably are caused by the first failure to call at the appropriate time.
"Funny hand: both sides can make 4 hearts - VM"
No one ever becomes a TD because of the money. They do it because they want to help bridge flourish in their club, region or nation.
Getting rid of one rude player might result in the arrival of four pleasant ones.

N massively deserves a PP, he has used the UI not to give whatever the correct response is to the 3♣ enquiry over his balanced 2N because (particularly if it's 3♦) partner might do something stupid over it. If they just play stayman, S might well bid 3N anyway over 3 hearts if it shows values and a heart card. I would explain that I needed to rule on it and why, and take it away to look at after I established NS's system over the 3♣ bid.

I thought the natural response to 3♣ would be 3♦, which South would take as a game try with longer diamonds, so I adjusted the score to 5♣(S)-1. (Minus two might have been better, but I don't think it would make much difference.) I consulted the players who were left after the game, and they all agreed with me, but I thought I'd check here in case anyone thought differently.

I'd agree with a procedural penalty if North were very experienced, but although he's one of the better club players he probably hasn't met this kind of ruling very often, and in his defence he was the one who called the TD.

After a 2♥ opening bid by your LHO your partner is not likely to have 4 hearts and even if he does, you shouldn’t be keen on a hearts contract.

It is not intended to play in hearts, say partner has a 4144 and you have a 44?? the knowledge that you have 4 hearts reduces the number of cover cards required in the minors, it's just good distributional info.

It is not intended to play in hearts, say partner has a 4144 and you have a 44?? the knowledge that you have 4 hearts reduces the number of cover cards required in the minors, it's just good distributional info.

I can't imagine anyone bidding anything other than 3NT over 3C on the North hand, whatever form of Stayman is being used. It does seem that NS are not very good; and there are some of the NGS threes and fours at the North London club who might think that 2NT was the minors. North does have UI, but bidding 3D or 3H is pointless as the only plausible game contract is 3NT. In fact NOT bidding 3NT might get a PP as the UI tells him that South might not have four spades. No adjustment.

Pass is the call that uses the UI, in that partner might now have a very weak hand with better clubs than diamonds, so I am shocked by the fact that some suggest it.

"Even the most intelligent people can make ridiculous mistakes" - New Scientist, 23 February 2019

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason. - barmar